Rodney M. Durham

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), multiple organ failure (MOF): are we winning the battle?

The problems of inflammation and infection leading to organ dysfunction and failure continue to be the major problems after injury and operations and with intensive care for many diseases and problems. When SIRS goes to MODS and MOF, the mortality becomes high, ranging from 30–80% depending on the number of failed organs. In spite of this, there have been recent exciting discoveries and contributions to patient care. A reasonable question then is, are we making progress and if so, can we document it? Are the incidence and mortality of MOF decreasing? The literature comparing care over some years suggests a decrease in ICU mortality in patients with severe organ failure, a decrease in elective surgical mortality, and improvement in the results of care and outcome for trauma patients. Review of problems occurring in sick and injured patients indicates that certain problems are decreasing in frequency, such as renal failure and ARDS after trauma, stress gastrointestinal bleeding, and abdominal abscesses, and these should improve outcome. There are a number of exciting therapies that help certain patients but not everyone. These controversies challenge us to focus on where and when there are positive benefits. Risk factors for MOF are addressed to focus on early intervention. The possibilities of multiple therapeutic agents are described. Finally, we describe and emphasize our recommendation to strive to prevent MODS and SIRS.

Multiple organ failure in trauma patients.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND As care of the critically ill patient has improved and definitions of organ failure have changed, it has been observed that the incidence of organ failure and the mortality associated with organ failure appear to be decreasing. In addition, many early studies included large heterogeneous populations of both medical and surgical patients that may have influenced the incidence and outcome of organ failure. The purpose of this study is to establish the current incidence and mortality of organ failure in a homogenous population of critically ill trauma patients. METHODS All trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at an urban Level I trauma center were prospectively studied. Patients were evaluated for the presence of organ failure using definitions proposed by Knaus and by Fry. Newer definitions of organ failure incorporating organ dysfunction and severity-of-illness scores were also obtained in all patients in an attempt to predict outcome. These included lung injury scores (acute respiratory distress syndrome scores), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and III scores, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and multiple organ dysfunction scores. Primary outcomes assessed were death and the occurrence of organ failure by the various definitions. RESULTS Eight hundred sixty-nine trauma patients were admitted to the ICU and survived longer than 48 hours. Mean APACHE II and APACHE III scores at admission to the ICU and ISS were 12.2 +/- 22, 30.5 +/- 22.7, and 19 +/- 10, respectively. Single organ failure (SOF) occurred in 163 patients (18.7%) and multiple organ failure occurred in 44 patients (5.1%). All SOF was caused by respiratory failure. Respiratory failure occurred first in the majority of patients with multiple organ failure. Mortality was 4.3% with one organ system failure, 32% with two, 67% with three, and 90% when four organ systems failed. None of the patients with SOF died secondary to respiratory failure. Multiple stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine which of the following risk factors are associated with the occurrence of organ failure: mechanism of injury, lactate at 24 hours, ISS, APACHE II, APACHE III, acute respiratory distress syndrome score at admission, multiple organ dysfunction score at admission and total blood products transfused in 24 hours. Of these factors, APACHE III, lactate at 24 hours, and total blood products transfused in 24 hours were associated with the occurrence of organ failure. CONCLUSION The overall incidence of organ failure in a homogeneous trauma population appears to be lower than that reported in studies performed in heterogeneous patient populations in the 1980s. Mortality for SOF is low and appears to be related primarily to the patients underlying injuries and not to organ failure. Mortality for two or three organ system failures is lower than reported 15 to 20 years ago. Mortality for patients with four or more organ system failures remains high, approaching 100%.

The Use of Oxygen Consumption and Delivery as Endpoints for Resuscitation in Critically III Patients

OBJECTIVE Oxygen consumption (VO2I) and delivery (DO2I) indices have been stated to be superior to conventional parameters as endpoints for resuscitation. However, another interpretation of published data is that inability to increase VO2I/DO2I given adequate volume resuscitation reflects inadequate physiologic reserve and poor outcome. DESIGN Fifty-eight critically ill patients were randomized to two groups. In group 1 (27 patients) attempts were made to maintain VO2I > or = 150 or DO2I > or = 600 mL/min/m2. If DO2I was > 600, no attempt was made to increase VO2I even if it was < 150. Group 2 (31 patients) was resuscitated based on conventional parameters. Volume resuscitation protocols and goals for pulmonary capillary wedge pressure were the same in both groups. VO2I/DO2I were recorded in group 2, but physicians were blinded to this data. Age, Injury Severity Score, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score were not different between groups. MAIN RESULTS Three patients in group 1 and two patients in group 2 died of organ failure (OF). One additional patient in group 2 died of refractory shock within 24 hours. Two of the patients in group 1 who died failed to meet VO2I/DO2I goals within 24 hours despite maximal resuscitation. Mortality was not different between the groups even with exclusion of the group 1 patients who failed to meet VO2I/DO2I goals (p = 0.66). After exclusion of the patient in group 2 who died of refractory shock, OF occurred in 18 of 27 (67%) in group 1 and in 22 of 30 (73%) in group 2 (p = 0.58). Length of ventilator support, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay were not different between groups. When all patients were assessed, no difference was found in the incidence of OF between patients who attained the VO2I goal and those who did not. OF occurred in 20 of 34 (59%) patients who maintained a mean DO2I > or = 600 during the first 24 hours of the study and in 21 of 24 (88%) of those who did not (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS No difference was found in the incidence of OF or death in patients resuscitated based on oxygen transport parameters compared to conventional parameters. These data suggest that given adequate volume resuscitation, oxygen-based parameters are more useful as predictors of outcome than as endpoints for resuscitation.

Outcome and utility of scoring systems in the management of the mangled extremity

BACKGROUND The role of scoring systems as predictors of amputation and functional outcome in severe blunt extremity trauma was examined. METHODS All severe extremity injuries treated over a 10-year period were scored retrospectively using four scoring systems: Mangled Extremity Syndrome Index (MESI), Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS), Predictive Salvage Index (PSI), and Limb Salvage Index (LSI). RESULTS Twenty-three upper (UE) and 51 lower extremity (LE) injuries were evaluated. Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were MESI 100% and 50%, MESS 79% and 83%, PSI 96% and 50%, and LSI 83% and 83%. For each system, there were no differences between patients with good and poor functional outcomes. CONCLUSION All of the scoring systems were able to identify the majority of patients who required amputation. However, prediction in individual patients was problematic. None of the scoring systems were able to predict functional outcome.

Evaluation of a mature trauma system.

Introduction:An effective trauma system should offer patients triaged to a trauma center (TC) a survival advantage and cost-effective treatment. Three questions were asked: 1) Does treatment at a TC versus a nontrauma center (NTC) improve survival? 2) Is the system cost-effective? 3) Is access to the system equitable? Methods:The 2003 Florida discharge database identified patients with ICD9 codes 800 to 959. Survival risk ratios (SRR) were calculated using1999–2000 data and ICISS were produced for each code. Using 2003 data, mortality rates were calculated for matched patients at TCs and NTCs. Instrumental variables methodology was used to account for differences in mortality risks of patients triaged to TCs versus NTCs. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine differences in mortality. Charge/cost ratios were analyzed to compute the cost care and cost/life saved. Accessibility to a TC within 85 minutes of injury was assessed. Results:Treatment at a TC was associated with an 18% reduction in mortality. Mean costs of care in TCs and NTCs were

Cardiovascular evaluation in blunt thoracic trauma using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)

11,910 and

The unreliability of CT scans and initial chest radiographs in evaluating blunt trauma induced diaphragmatic rupture

6019, respectively. Dividing the mean cost difference by the reduction in mortality yields a cost of

Computed tomography in the diagnosis of blunt thoracic injury

34,887/life saved. A total of 42% of patients returned to work within 24 months of injury. Using an expected median of 19 years of employment for a 33-year-old individual and proposed state funding figures for the trauma system, a life saved results in an approximate annual cost to the state of between

Right ventricular end-diastolic volume as a measure of preload

100 and

Management of blunt hepatic injuries

500. Currently, 95% of citizens of the state have access to the trauma system within 85 minutes of injury; however, only 38% of trauma patients are triaged to a TC. Addition of 3 TCs would increase these percentages to 99% and 65%. Conclusions:Triage to a Florida TC is associated with a decreased risk of death. Moreover, cost/life year saved is favorable when compared with societal expenditures for other health problems. Improved deployment of TCs is necessary to optimize access. This assessment methodology is a useful model for evaluation of mature trauma systems.